Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al (US 20110021101).
Hawkins is directed to a modified starch based binder (Title). Hawkins teaches an aqueous binder composition is provided that includes a modified starch and a silane coupling agent, and optionally, a crosslinking agent. The starch from which the modified starch is derived is natural in origin, biorenewable, and is derived from plant sources. Hawkins teaches the binder may be used in formation of insulation materials and nonwoven chopped strand mats (ABST).
Hawkins teaches an embodiment of the invention wherein the pH adjuster has a basic pH and is added to the binder composition in an amount sufficient to produce a binder that has a desired, basic pH. Non-limiting examples of suitable basic pH adjusters include sodium bisulfate, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and/or ammonium hydroxide. The pH of the binder composition, when in a basic state, may range from about 8 to about 14, or from about 8 to about 12. In at least one exemplary embodiment, the pH of the binder composition is about 9. It is to be appreciated that the binder may alternatively have a neutral pH [0041].
Hawkins teaches the binder further includes water to dissolve or disperse the active solids for application onto the reinforcement fibers. Water may be added in an amount sufficient to dilute the aqueous binder composition to a viscosity that is suitable for its application to the reinforcement fibers and to achieve a desired solids content on the fibers. In particular, the binder composition may contain water in an amount from about 70% to about 98.0% by weight of the total solids in the binder composition [0045].
Hawkins teaches the binder composition is aqueous, claimed step (a), adjusts the ph to a range of 8-12 or 9 which is in the claimed range claimed step (d).
Hawkins teaches a crosslinker but also teaches the crosslinker is optional (ABST); [0010]; [0011]; [0033]. Hawkins teaches a starch binder that does not require a crosslinker as claimed.
Hawkins teaches a second embodiment of the present invention, the binder composition may be used to form a non-woven chopped strand mat. A nonwoven chopped strand mat is equated with the claimed fabric. The binder is added during the formation of the chopped strand mat in a wet-laid mat processing line. One exemplary process of separately adding the coupling agent to the chopped strand mat is depicted in FIG. 3. Chopped glass fibers 100 (110 as shown in Fig. 3) may be provided to a conveying apparatus such as a conveyor 112 by a storage container 114 for conveyance to a mixing tank 116 that contains various surfactants, viscosity modifiers, defoaming agents, and/or other chemical agents with agitation to disperse the fibers and form a chopped glass fiber slurry (not shown). The glass fiber slurry may be transferred to a head box 118 where the slurry is deposited onto a conveying apparatus such as a moving screen or foraminous conveyor 120 and a substantial portion of the water from the slurry is removed to form a web (mat) 122 of enmeshed fibers. The water may be removed from the web 122 by a conventional vacuum or air suction system (not shown) [0060].
PNG
media_image1.png
398
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hawkins teaches and aqueous binder is applied to a nonwoven, i.e. a fabric, step (b) and the binder is applied during the wet laid process which coats all of the fibers and equated with the claimed “wet-impregnated” as applied in a wet-laid method as an aqueous binder as in claimed step (c) and also meets the limitation of “spread on one or both side of the fabric and through the fabric” as claimed by the nature that the process of wet-impregnating is the same.
The inventive binder 124 is applied to the web 122 by a suitable binder applicator, such as the spray applicator 126 or a curtain coater (not illustrated). Once the binder 124 has been applied to the mat 122, the binder coated mat 128 is passed through at least one drying oven 130 to remove any remaining water and cure the binder composition 124. The formed non-woven chopped strand mat 132 that emerges from the oven 130 is an assembly of randomly oriented, dispersed, individual glass fibers. The chopped strand mat 132 may be rolled onto a take-up roll 134 for storage for later use as illustrated. The non-woven mat can be use in roofing, flooring, ceiling, wall applications, as filters, in ground based vehicles, and in aircraft [0061].
Hawkins teaches the nonwoven is dried to remove the remaining water of the binder as claimed in step (d) [0065]; [0068], [0071].
Hawkins teaches modified starch (Title), the modified starch has a low viscosity [0011], [0020], that is chemically modified form its natural derived source by oxidation, bleaching, or acid or base treatment [0034]. Hawkins does not refer to the modified starch as thinned starch but it is equated with the claimed thinned starch as Applicant describes the thinned starch can be made as described in the instant application [0022]-[0023] and includes acid thinning, oxidizing agents:
[0022] As will be known to a person skilled in the art, a thinned starch can be produced in a number of ways, including thinning by using acid (acid thinning), enzymes (enzymatic thinning), oxidizing agents (hydrogen peroxide thinning, hypochloride thinning, persulfate thinning) and heat (thermal degradation).
[0023] Preferably, the thinned starch of the present invention is obtained by thermal degradation. Thermal degradation is achieved by heat treating starch molecules under low moisture conditions (i.e. no more than 25% moisture).
As to claims 1 and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a thinned starch aqueous composition at a pH of 9-12 motivated to replace synthetic polymers and provide for the desired improvement of properties.
As to claims 2 and 21, Hawkins teaches the pH of the binder composition, when in a basic state, may range from about 8 to about 14, or from about 8 to about 12. In at least one exemplary embodiment, the pH of the binder composition is about 9. It is to be appreciated that the binder may alternatively have a neutral pH [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a thinned starch aqueous composition at a pH of 10-12 motivated to replace synthetic polymers and provide for the desired improvement of properties.
As to claims 4 and 16, Hawkins teaches modified starch and differs and is not specific with regard to thinned starch. Hawkins teaches the starch can be dextrin in Table 14, [0096]. Hawkins teaches the modified starch can be derived from plant sources such as corn, potatoes [0010]. While Hawkins does not explicitly teach corn dextrin or native corn, as Hawkins teaches the starch can be derived from corn and teaches dextrin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ corn dextrin and native corn motivated obtain starch from a natural source.
As to claims 6, 18 and 19, Hawkins teaches the modified starches have beneficially low viscosity and cure at moderate temperatures (80-200°C) [0035]. The drying and curing oven may operate at 100°C – 325°C [0057]. The temperatures overlap the claimed ranges of less than 200°C, less than 170°C and less than 150°C.
As to claim 7, Hawkins teaches the aqueous binder contains water in amounts of 70-98% [0045] which overlaps the claimed range of 40-90%. Hawkins teaches starch in amounts of can be 20% as shown in Table 4 [0064], page 7.
As to claims 9, 10 and 20, Hawkins teaches a nonwoven of chopped strand mats (ABST). Hawkins teaches the binder composition can be used to form an insulation product with inorganic fibers as well as organic fibers such as synthetic fibers such as polyester [0050].
As to claim 11, Hawkins does not teach heating the binder composition prior to spraying on the nonwoven mat. The binder is applied by spray applicator 124 (as shown in Fig. 3). The binder coated mat is passed through at least one drying oven to remove remaining water [0061]. Not heating the binder would be an ambient temperature and overlap the temperature of 20°C.
Hawkins teaches the binder is added on in amounts of about 10-25% as a dry weight [0053]. As the amount of binder in the aqueous composition is about 20% and the water is 80%, this would be an wet add on weight of 25/0.2 = 125 or 125% by weight of the fabric.
As to claim 13, Hawkins teaches the amount of binder on the fibers is less than 25%, less than 20% and less than or equal to 10% by weight of the total product [0053] which overlaps the claimed range of 5-35%.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al (US 20110021101) in view of Marakainen et al (WO201131330) and Griffin et al (US 2343898).
As to claim 3, Hawkins does not teach thinned and non-thinned starch.
Marakainen is directed to binders of a starch mixture for use in coating compositions. The present invention provides a starch mixture for use in the preparation of coating compositions - and to coating compositions prepared therewith - characterized in that the starch mixture comprises (a) a non-thinned starch; and (b) a thinned starch (ABST).
Marakainen teaches the coatings are for substrates such as textiles and paper.
The amount of each of these ingredients to be added will be determined in accordance with standard practice and with the desired properties of the particular coating composition. For 100 parts pigment, the coating composition of the present invention will preferably comprise 1-50 parts of the starch mixture defined above, 0-30 parts synthetic binder, 0-5 parts thickener and 0-5 parts additive(s) (all calculated on a dry weight basis). Advantageously, it will comprise 100 parts pigment, 5-25 parts starch mixture, 1-10 parts synthetic binder, 0-2 parts thickener and 0-2 parts additive(s). More preferably, the composition will comprise 5-15 parts starch mixture, 3-8 parts synthetic binder, 0-1 parts thickener and 0-1 parts additive(s). The exact make-up of the composition will readily be determined by the skilled person depending on the desired end properties of the coating composition. When in its aqueous, ready-to-use form, the composition of the invention will preferably comprise at least 50% by weight dry substance, more preferably 50-80%. The composition will advantageously have a pH of 7 to 12. Preferably, the pH will be from 8 to 10 (page 6 and 7, lines 24-36, 1-3)
Marakainen teaches an aqueous starch composition with thinned starch and a pH that overlaps the claimed range of 9 to 12.
Marakainen teaches the objective of the invention is to employ non-thinned and thinned starch to replace in whole or in part synthetic binders in coating compositions and the advantage is that the starch mixture can significantly improve the rheology of the coating compositions without adversely affecting mottling or surface strength compared to latex only binders (page 9, lines 1-5). Marakainen teaches the thinned starches are modified by hydrolysis (page 3, lines 29-37) per Applicant’s definition in [0021].
Marakainen teaches the composition provides for an improvement in one or more properties of the substrate, e.g. appearance, feel, printability, strength, water resistance, reflectivity and/or functionality.
Marakainen teaches the compositions can be coating on one or both sides and multiple coatings. Marakainen teaches the coating is applied by methods known in the art such as air knife coating, rod coating, bar coating, wire bar coating, spray coating, brush coating, cast coating, flexible blade coating, gravure coating, jet applicator coating, curtain coating reverse roll coating (page 8, lines 15-26). As the coating is an aqueous solution or dispersion, the coating would inherently penetrate the fabric and are equated with wet impregnating.
Marakainen teaches a blend of non-thinned and thinned starch at a ratio of 50:50, to 1:99 (page 4, lines 22-30) which is the same as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a combination of thinned and non-thinned starch motivated to improve the rheology of the mixture provided by the thinned starch.
Wherein Marakainen teaches the binders are for use in textiles and papers, the examples are all for paper. Additional evidence that the it would have been obvious to use a modified starch as a textile binder is found in Griffin. Griffin teaches thin boiled starch binders for use in textiles and paper.
Griffin is directed to film forming compositions and to a method of increasing the permanency and the resistance to water of various types of materials by the treatment of said materials with the compositions of this invention. Griffin teaches the expression "film forming compositions" as employed herein is intended to cover generically a rather wide variety of compositions useful in several different industries with some modification, for example, compositions useful in the textile Industry, the paper industry, the leather industry, as adhesives, as insulating materials and for many other purposes where resistance to water is a factor and increased resistance to water is desired. The compositions of the invention may be applied in sizing, coating, impregnating, finishing, dyeing, printing and in various other types of treatments applicable to textiles, paper and other types of materials (col. 1, lines 1-20).
Griffin teaches any one of a number of different types of fibrous material, including textile fibers or fabrics, paper, insulating materials and other types of materials. The compositions may also be applied to form films on metals, wood and other materials of construction where water resistance or greater permanency is desired (page 2, first column, lines 14-32). Griffin teaches the addition of the starch composition to treat textiles and fabric and
Griffin teaches it is preferable to employ a starch or a starch degeneration product as the film forming base. By a starch degeneration product is meant a derivative of starch such as may be obtained by the various processes of making thin boiling and so-called modified starches and dextrins. In general, especially good results have been obtained with specially modified starches (page 4, first column, lines 57-66).
Griffin does not refer to the modified, thin boiling starch as thinned starch but it is equated with the claimed thinned starch as Applicant describes the thinned starch can be made as described in the instant application [0022]-[0023] and includes heat; thermal degradation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a combination of thinned and non-thinned starch motivated to improve the rheology of the mixture provided by the thinned starch to provide water resistance to a textile.
As to claims 5, 16 and 17, Hawkins teaches modified starch and differs and is not specific with regard to thinned starch. Hawkins teaches the starch can be dextrin in Table 14, [0096]. Hawkins teaches the modified starch can be derived from plant sources such as corn, potatoes [0010]. While Hawkins does not explicitly teach corn dextrin or native corn, as Hawkins teaches the starch can be derived from corn and teaches dextrin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ corn dextrin and native corn motivated obtain starch from a natural source.
Marakainen teaches the starch can be a corn dextrin (page 4, lines 13-16) or native waxy corn starch (page 4, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a native corn starch or corn dextrin motivated to produce a thinned starch binder.
As to claim 8, Hawkins teaches mixing the modified starch with water to form the aqueous binder. Hawkins teaches the pH can be adjusted to 8 to 14 in some embodiments [0041].
Marakainen teaches mixing thinned and non-thinned starch at a pH to solubilize the thinned starch in water at a pH of 7-12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the binder composition via the steps of providing thinned starch, mixing the thinned starch and adjusting the pH motivated to achieve the desired rheology of the composition and at a pH that solubilizes the starches and replaces synthetic polymers in the binder composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach a composition with bituminuous material and starch that does not include a crosslinking agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hawkins modified starch is not the same as Applicant’s thinned starch and the office action has not provided sufficient clear evidentiary showing the Hawkins is the same starch as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. As Applicant describes the starch in [0022] and the description overlaps with Hawkins description of modified, the rejection is maintained. The claims do not distinguish the starch from Hawkins.
Applicant argues that the claims are free of crosslinking agent and Hawkins modified starch has self crosslinking behavior.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive. In the absence of evidence that the thinner starch is different from the modified starch of Hawkins, both starches would have the same behavior, i.e. crosslinking. And the claims do not exclude the thinner starch from being a crosslinking agent, the claims limit the invention to have an additional crosslinking agent.
Applicant argues the rejection over Hawkins in view of Marakainen and Griffin and states that the record does not provide an articulated reason to combine the references as Hawkins is directed to a binder for fibrous webs, whereas Marakainen is directed to starch mixtures for coating compositions, particularly paper coating compositions that include pigment and may also include synthetic binder, thickener, and additives (See pages 8-12 of the Office Action; Abstract and page 1, lines 5-8 of Marakainen). Although Marakainen discloses thinned/non-thinned starch mixtures and a pH range overlapping portions of the claims, those teachings are presented in the context of coating-composition formulation and rheology. Applicant respectfully submits that the record does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hawkins' binder system with Marakainen's coating-composition teachings to obtain the claimed alkaline starch dispersion and the particular limitations of claims 3, 5, 8, 16, and 17 (See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). This is particularly so because, as discussed above with respect to the Hawkins-based rejection, the record does not clearly establish that Hawkins itself teaches the claimed "thinned starch," and the additional references do not supply a persuasive reasoned path that cures that underlying deficiency.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because an aqueous binder for a nonwoven versus a coating for paper are essentially the same materials. Liquid binder is a coating that would saturate a nonwoven and a paper is a fibrous mass which is the same as a nonwoven.
Applicant states that Griffin further points in a different direction from the presently claimed subject matter. Griffin's approach to water resistance depends on the use of antimony fixing agents and pH conditions below those recited in the present claims, stating that the composition should be less than 10 and preferably less than 7 (See, for example, column 2, lines 38-42 of Griffin). By contrast, the present application teaches adjusting the aqueous binder composition to pH 9-12, and expressly teaches that the disclosed starch system provides sufficient binding strength such that no or only minor amounts of further reactive agents such as cross-linkers and catalysts are necessary, preferably with the aqueous binder composition free of a cross-linking agent (See, for example, paragraphs [0041], [0058]-[0059], and [0087]-[0088] of the present application). Applicant respectfully submits that Griffin therefore points in a different direction from the claimed alkaline, cross-linker-free approach, rather than supplying a reason to adopt it.
As Griffin teaches the same claimed features for use as a binder in textiles or paper and therefore a teaching that thinned starch is used in both applications.
As to claim 15, Applicant argues the rejection over Hawkins in view of Rempt and states that the record does not fully establish the limitations required by claim 15. Applicant does not remedy this deficiency. Rempt is directed to roofing and bituminization contexts, its binder system is described in terms of crosslinking chemistry by means of polymer with crosslinking agents.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the claim is indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Falivene et al US 3644241 A
Sivasligil et al WO 2018213393 A1 (cited as US 20210155776)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights